Log In
November 19, 2006
Offline
It’s an appeal of condition question. I have never owned a ’92 .32-20 SRC – not due to lack of desire. So, I’ve always looked closely at any that have come along. They certainly aren’t common. This is one Austin has on auction. This is a carbine that looks like it saw very little wear and tear. Most of this carbine is very crisp. But that flaking… To me, the flaking is is so unsightly, it drives me off. I am wondering what reactions others have?
March 21, 2016
Offline
Well at least buying from Austin, you can rest assured that he is giving you an honest representation of the firearm.
Beautiful 92 with the exception of the flaking.
Winchester Model 1873 44-40 circa 1886
May 26, 2017
Offline
I could handle it for the right price.
November 19, 2006
Offline
Kevin Jones said
Well at least buying from Austin, you can rest assured that he is giving you an honest representation of the firearm.Beautiful 92 with the exception of the flaking.
Kevin – I agree with your points. My question regarding the flaking – to what extant would that detour you from wanting to own it?
October 29, 2019
Offline
I could live with it. Knowing that this is a common issue with some Winchesters.
Shoot low boys. They're riding Shetland Ponies.
March 21, 2016
Offline
steve004 said
Kevin – I agree with your points. My question regarding the flaking – to what extant would that detour you from wanting to own it?
Personally, that would be a deal breaker for me, regardless of cost.
Winchester Model 1873 44-40 circa 1886
March 15, 2020
Online
I was buying an almost twin to that 92 recently. The flaking was not quite as noticeable on that one. Is this something common to..92s? We had agreed on $1000 for it and some ammo until his wife said NO because it had been her uncles gun. Otherwise I would have it now. Don
November 19, 2006
Offline
Kevin Jones said
Personally, that would be a deal breaker for me, regardless of cost.
Thanks Kevin. I feel identically. I’ve seen a lot of Winchester flaking in my time and it usually doesn’t bother me. However, there are plenty of bidders on this one, so clearly some feel differently. I am quite curious as to how high it will go.
April 15, 2005
Online
86Win said
I was buying an almost twin to that 92 recently. The flaking was not quite as noticeable on that one. Is this something common to..92s? We had agreed on $1000 for it and some ammo until his wife said NO because it had been her uncles gun. Otherwise I would have it now. Don
Yes, it is common on the Model 92 (and its sibling Model 53). Additionally, it is very common on the Model 94 (and its sibling Model 55). The Flaking issue began with the guns manufactured in the early part of WW I and continued through the early 1930s.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
October 29, 2019
Offline
Bert H. said
Yes, it is common on the Model 92 (and its sibling Model 53). Additionally, it is very common on the Model 94 (and its sibling Model 55). The Flaking issue began with the guns manufactured in the early part of WW I and continued through the early 1930s.
I have a 95 that has lost so much blue, it almost looks like stainless steel. No pitting. The metal is smooth as butter. I believe it is caused by the high nickel content.
Shoot low boys. They're riding Shetland Ponies.
November 2, 2009
Offline
I can and have accepted flaking on these higher serial numbers. However, some are more attractive than this one. In this case, the way it flaked is not attractive and not one I would pursue. Just my opinion, but I don’t care for the look of this one.
1 Guest(s)
